You are on page 1of 15

Rule 17

Dismissal of Actions

O.B. Jovenir Construction and Devlopment Corp. vs Macamir Realty and


Development Corp. (2006)

An action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of the court by filing a
notice of dismissal at any time before service of the answer or of a motion for
summary judgment. Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without
prejudice, except that a notice operates as an adjudication upon the merits when
filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in a competent court an action based on
or including the same claim. A class suit shall not be dismissed or compromised
without the approval of the court.

Procedural rule may not be given retroactive effect if vested rights would be
disturbed, or if their application would not be feasible or would work injustice.

Cruz vs Court of Appeals (2006)

Under the rule of res judicata, also known as “bar by prior judgment”, a final
judgment or order on the merits, rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the
subject matter and of the parties, is conclusive in a subsequent case between the
same parties and their successor-in-interest by title subsequent to the
commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating the same for the
same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity.

Failure to prosecute – Once a case is dismissed for failure to prosecute, this has
the effect of an adjudication on the merits and is understood to be with prejudice to
the filing of another action unless otherwise provided in the order of dismissal. The
rule enumerates the instances where the complaint may be dismissed due to
plaintiff’s fault:

1) If he fails to appear on the date for the presentation of his evidence in chief;
2) If he fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time; or
3) He fails to comply with the rules or any order of the court.

Pinga vs Heirs of German Santiago (2006)

The dismissal of the complaint due to the fault of the plaintiff does not necessarily
carry with the dismissal of the counterclaim. Dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint is
without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the
same or separate action.
If the Court dismisses the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the
compulsory counterclaim must also be dismissed as it merely ancillary to the main
action and no jurisdiction remained for any grant of relief under the counterclaim.

Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. vs Dakila Trading Corporation (2007)

Court’s acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint while
jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the service
of summons upon them in the manner required by law or through their voluntary
appearance in court and their submission to its authority.

When the case instituted is an action in rem or quasi in rem, Philippine


Courts already have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because, in actions in
rem and quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires
jurisdiction over the res; when the defendant or respondent does not reside and is
not found in the Philippines and the action involved is in personam, Philippine
Courts cannot try any case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring
jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntary appears in court.

Default

Ramnani vs Court of Appeals (1993)

A party who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference may be non-suited or


considered as in default.

As held in Lina vs Court of Appeals, the remedies available to a defendant in the


regional trial court who has been declared in default are:

a) The defendant in default may, at any time after discovery thereof and before
judgment, file a motion, under oath, to set aside the order of default on the
ground that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence, and that he has a meritorious defense;
b) If the judgment has already been rendered when the defendant discovered
the default, but before the same has become final and executory, he may file
a motion for new trial;
c) If the defendant discovered the default after the judgment has become final
and executory, he may file a petition for relief; and
d) He may also appeal from the judgment rendered against him as contrary to
the evidence or to the law, even no petition to set aside the order of default
has been presented by him.
A satisfactory showing by the movant of the existence of fraud, accident, mistake
or excusable negligence is an indispensable requirement for the setting aside of a
judgment of default or the order of default.

Martinez vs Republic (2006)

A defaulted defendant has the right to appeal the adverse decision of the trial court
even without seeking to set aside the order of default.

A party declared in default has the right to appeal from the judgment on the
ground, inter alia, that the amount of the judgment is excessive or is different in
kind from that prayed for, or that the plaintiff failed to prove the material
allegations of his complaint, or that the decision is contrary to law.

Jao and Company, Inc. vs Court of Appeals (1995)

The main purpose of a preliminary attachment is to preserve the status quo and not
to grant the very subject of the petition on the merits. Whatever defects that may
have been committed by the trial court in failing to give constructive notice of its
erroneous default order was cured by the affected party’s voluntary filing of a
motion for reconsideration.

Indiana Aerospace University vs. CHED (2001)

In computing the timeliness of a petition for certiorari, what should be considered is


not the receipt of the order denying the Motion to Dismiss and issuing the Writ of
Preliminary Injunction but receipt of the Oder declaring the petitioner in
default.

The remedies of a defendant declared in default are available only to a


defendant who has been validly declared in default since a defendant improvidently
declared in default may retain and exercise such right after the order of
default and the subsequent judgment by default are annulled, and the case
remanded to the court of origin.

If, in the course of trial, a judge proceeds without or in excess of jurisdiction,


the rule prohibiting an appeal does not leave the aggrieved party without any
remedy, a special civil action of certiorari is the plain, speedy and adequate
remedy.

LCK Industries Inc. vs Planters Development Bank (2007)

Pre-trial seeks to achieve the following:


1) The possibility of an amicable settlement or of a submission to alternative
modes of dispute resolution;
2) The simplification of the issues;
3) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings;
4) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of
documents to avoid unnecessary proof;
5) The limitation of the number of witnesses;
6) The advisability of a preliminary reference to issues to a commissioner;
7) The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary
judgment, or of dismissing the action should a valid ground therefor be found
to exist;
8) The advisability or necessity of suspending the proceedings; and
9) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action.

The purpose of entering into a stipulation of facts is to expedite trial and to relieve
the parties and the court as well of the costs of proving facts which will not be
disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry.

The parties, obviate the element of surprise, are expected to disclose at the pre-
trial conference all issues of law and fact they intend to raise at the trial, in cases in
which the issue may involve privileged or impeaching matters, or if the issues are
impliedly included therein or may be inferable therefrom by the necessary
implication to be integral parts of the pre-trial order as much as those that are
expressly stipulated, the general rule will not apply.

Calalang vs Court of Appeals (1993)

A pre-trial cannot validly be held until the last pleading has been filed which last
pleading may be the plaintiff’s reply, except where the period to file the last
pleading has lapsed.

In Marahay vs Melicor, the court set forth the test for dismissal of a case due to
failure to prosecute, to wit: “while a court can dismiss a case on the ground of non
prosequitor, the real test for the exercise of such power is whether, under the
circumstances, plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed
with reasonable promptitude.

Dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute is a matter addressed to the sound


discretion of the court. That discretion, however, must not be abused. Thus, courts
may not enter a dismissal which is not warranted by the circumstances of the case.
The availability of this recourse must be determined according to each case’s
procedural history, situation at the time of the dismissal and whether, under the
circumstances of the particular case, the plaintiff is chargeable with want of the
diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude.
Rule 33

Demurrer to Evidence

Republic vs Tuvera (2007)

Res judicata is an appropriate ground for sustaining a demurrer to evidence even as


it stands as a proper ground for a motion to dismiss. A demurrer to evidence may
be granted if, after the presentation of plaintiff’s evidence, it appears upon the facts
and the law that the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. In contrast, the grounds
for res judicata present themselves even before the presentation of evidence, and it
should be at the stage that the defense of res judicata should be invoked as a
ground for dismissal.

Rule 34

Judgment on the Pleadings

Meneses vs Secretary of Agrarian Reform (2006)

Rule 34, section 1 of the Rules of Court, provides that a judgment on the pleadings
is proper when an answer fails to render an issue or otherwise admits the material
allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings

Rule 35

Summary Judgments

Ontimare, Jr. vs Elep

When the pleadings tender a genuine issue, summary judgment is not proper. An
issue is genuine if it requires the presentation of evidence as distinguish from a
sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. For summary judgment to be proper, two
requisites must concur, to wit:

1) There must be no genuine issue on any material fact except for the amount
of damages; and
2) The moving party must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Asian Construction and Development Corp. vs PCIB (2006)

A “genuine issue” is an issue of fact which requires the presentation of evidence as


distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. When the facts as
pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there is no real or genuine issue or
question as to the facts, and summary judgment is called for. The party who moves
for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any
genuine issue of fact, or that the issue posed in the complaint is patently
unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. Trial Courts have
limited authority to render summary judgment and may do so only when there is
clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. When the facts as pleaded by the
parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take
place of trial.

BA Finance Corporation vs Court of Appeals (1994)

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to reviewing errors of law. The
issue raised here by the petitioner involves a question of fact which is not
reviewable by this Court in this petition. The jurisdiction of this Court in cases
brought to it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and revising the
errors of law imputed to it, its findings of fact being conclusive. It is not the
function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its
jurisdiction being limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been
committed, unless there is showing that the findings complained of are totally
devoid of support in the record or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to
constitute serious abuse of discretion.

Eternal Gardens Memorial Parks Corp. vs IAC (1988)

Courts have inherent power to amend their judgments to make them conformable
to the law applicable provided that the same have not obtained finality.

The essence of interpleader, aside from the disavowal of interest in the property in
litigation on the part of the petitioner, is the deposit of the property or funds in
controversy with the court. It is a rule founded on justice and equity:” that the
plaintiff may not continue to benefit from the property or funds in litigation during
the pendency of the suit at the expense of whoever will ultimately be decided as
entitled thereto”.

Nuñal vs Court of Appeals (1993)

A final judgment cannot be modified anymore; Exceptions:

In the case of Manning International Corporation vs NLRC, the Court held that,
nothing is more settled in the law than that when a final judgment becomes
executory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment may no
longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what
is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether
the modification is attempted to be made by the Court rendering it or by the
highest Court of land. The only recognized exceptions are the correction of
clerical errors or the making of so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no
prejudice to any party, and, of course, where the judgment is void. Furthermore,
any amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory
judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings
held for that purpose.

Industrial Timber Corp. vs NLRC (1994)

It is a rule that where a pleading is filed by ordinary mail or by private messengerial


service, it is deemed filed on the day it is actually received by the court.

Esquivel vs Alegre (1989)

There is difference between an amended judgment and a supplemental judgment.


In an amended and clarified judgment, the lower court makes a thorough study of
the original judgment and renders the amended and clarified judgment only after
considering all the factual and legal issues. The amended and clarified decision is an
entirely new decision which supersedes the original decision. Following the Court’s
differentiation of a supplemental pleading from an amending pleading, it can be
said that a supplemental decision does not take the place or extinguish the
existence of the original. As its very name denotes, it only serves to bolster or add
something to the primary decision. A supplemental exists side by side with the
original. It does not replace that which it supplements.

After a decision became final and executory, the prevailing party is entitled as a
matter of right to a writ of execution the issuance of which is a ministerial duty
compellable by mandamus.

Cardoza vs Singson (1990)

The issuance of a nunc pro tunc order was recognized by this Court in Lichauco vs
Tan where an order or judgment actually rendered. There is no doubt that such an
entry operates to save proceedings had before it was made.

Marina Properties Corporation vs Court of Appeals (1998)

A party adversely affected by a decision of a trial court may move for


reconsideration thereof on the following grounds:

a) The damages awarded are excessive;


b) The evidence is insufficient to justify the decision; or
c) The decision is contrary to law.

Rule 40

MTC to RTC

Provost vs Court of Appeals (2006)

Though a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is not proper
where the case involves an error of judgment and not of jurisdiction, the Court may
nevertheless treat it as one proper for review under Rule 45. This case involves an
error of judgment and not of jurisdiction. Thus, a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court is not proper.

Rule 41

RTC to CA

Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. vs Court of Appeals (2000)

In an ordinary appeal from the final judgment or order of a metropolitan or


municipal trial court to the regional trial court, and from the regional trial court to
the Court of Appeals in actions or proceedings originally filed in the Regional Trial
Court, the fifteen-day period for appeal prescribed by section 39 of B.P. Blg 129
and section 19(a) of the Interim rules is interrupted or suspended by a motion
for new trial or reconsideration duly filed, and if the motion for new trial or
reconsideration is denied, the moving party has the only remaining period from
notice of denial within which to file a notice of appeal.

A motion contesting a late appeal may be filed before the appellate court
even after the transmittal of the records therein, the legality of the appeal may be
raised at any stage of the proceedings in the appellate court, and the latter is not
precluded from dismissing the petition on the ground of its being out of time. A
recognition of the merit of the petition does not necessarily carry with it any
assumption or conclusion that it has been timely filed.

Neypes vs Court of Appeals (2005)

The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely
a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance
with the provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must
comply with the requirements of the rules. Failure to do so often leads to the loss of
the right to appeal. The period of appeal is fixed by both statute and procedural
rules.

An appeal should be taken within 15 days from the notice of judgment or final order
appealed from.

Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the
notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order
dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration to standardize the
appeal periods provided in the Rules.

Trans International vs Court of Appeals (1998)

Appellate jurisdiction of the courts is conferred by law, and must be exercised in the
manner and in accordance with the provisions thereof and such jurisdiction is
acquired by the appellate court over the subject matter and parties by the
perfection of the appeal. Strict compliance with the Rules of Court is indispensable
for the prevention of needless delays and for the orderly and expeditious dispatch
of juridical business.

Court has on several occasions relaxed this strict requirement. For a party to seek
exception for its failure to comply strictly with the statutory requirements for
perfecting its appeal, strong compelling reasons such as serving the ends of justice
and preventing a grave miscarriage thereof must be shown, in order to warrant the
Court’s suspension of the Rules.

In the case of Toledo, et al vs Intermediate Appellate Court, we allowed


the filing of an appeal where a stringent application of the rules would have denied
it, but only when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and in the
exercise of our equity jurisdiction.

Custodio vs Court of Appeals (1996)

For failure to appeal the decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals,
petitioners cannot obtain any affirmative relief other than those granted in the
decision of the trial court. That decision of the court below has become final against
them and can no longer be reviewed, much less reversed, by this Court. The rule
on jurisdiction is that whenever an appeal is taken in a civil case, an appellee who
has not himself appealed may not obtain from the appellate court any affirmative
relief other than what was granted in the decision of the lower court. The appellee
can only advance any argument that he may deem necessary to defeat the
appellant’s claim or to uphold the decision that is being disputed, and he can assign
errors in his brief if such is required to strengthen the views expressed by the court
a quo.
Rule 42

RTC to CA

Ross Rica Sales Center, Inc. vs Ong (2005)

The long settled rule is that the issue of ownership cannot be subject of a
collateral attack. In Apostol vs Court of Appeals, this Court had the occasion to
clarify this…. under Section 48 of the Presidential Decree No. 1529, a certificate of
title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified or
canceled, except in a direct proceeding for that purpose in accordance with law.

Macawiwili Gold Mining and Development Co., Inc. vs Court of Appeals


(1998)

Generally, a motion for reconsideration must be filed before the tribunal, board,
officer against whom the writ of certiorari is sought. It is settled that the writ of
certiorari lies only when petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law.

“Grave abuse of discretion” is meant, such capricious and whimsical exercise of


judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be
grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason
of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to
all in contemplation of law.

Ditching vs Court of Appeals (1996)

The miscalculation by the counsel of the appeal period will not arrest the course of
the same nor prevent the finality of the judgment.

It should be stressed that a lawyer has a responsibility of monitoring and keeping


track of the period of time left to file an appeal. He cannot escape from the rigid
observance of this rule which is jurisdictional and cannot be trifled with as “mere
technicality” to suit the interest of the party. The rules as to periods for filing appeal
are to be observed religiously, for it is well-settled in our jurisdiction that the right
to appeal is a statutory right and party who seeks to avail of the right must comply
with the rules. Perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is a
jurisdictional requirement.

The legality of the allowance of the appeal may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings in the appellate court, the court is not precluded from dismissing the
petition on the ground that it was filed late inasmuch as the recognition of the merit
of the petition does not carry with it any assumption or conclusion that it was
timely filed.

Rule 43

Quasi-judicial Agencies to Court of Appeals

Fabian vs Desierto (1998)

The administrative liability of a public official could fall under the jurisdiction of both
the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman.

Appeals from judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial agencies are now required
to be brought to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review, under the
requirements and conditions in Rule 43 which was precisely formulated and adopted
to provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies.

Appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases


should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43.

Garcia-Rueda vs Pascasio (1997)

Preliminarily, the powers and functions of the Ombudsman have generally been
categorized into the following: investigatory powers, prosecutory power, public
assistance function, authority to inquire and obtain information, and function to
adopt, institute and implement preventive measures. As protector of the people,
the Office of the Ombudsman has the power, function and duty “to act promptly on
complaints filed in any form or manner against public official” and “to investigate
any act or omission of any public official when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.”

While the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a
criminal case should be filed, the Supreme Court is not precluded from reviewing
the Ombudsman’s action when there is an abuse of discretion, in which case Rule
65 of the Rules of Court may exceptionally be invoked pursuant to Section 1, Article
VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

Santos vs Go (2005)
Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure clearly shows that it governs appeals
to the Court of Appeals from decisions and final orders or resolutions of the Court of
Tax Appeals or quasi-judicial agencies in the exercise of their quasi-judicial
functions. The Department of Justice is not among the agencies enumerated in
Section 1 of Rule 43.

Since the Department of Justice is not a quasi-judicial body and it is not one
of those agencies whose decisions, orders or resolutions are appealable to the Court
of Appeals under Rule 43, the resolution of the Secretary of Justice finding the
probable cause to indict petitioners for estafa is, therefore, not appealable to the
Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43.

Fortich vs Corona (1998)

The remedy prescribed in Rule 43 is inapplicable where the petition contains an


allegation that the challenged resolution is “patently illegal” and was issued with
grave abuse of discretion and beyond the public respondent’s jurisdiction when said
resolution substantially modified the earlier decision which had long become final
and executory.

The Supreme Court has the full discretionary to take cognizance of a petition for
certiorari filed directly to it if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of
the issues raised, warrant.

The Supreme Court has the power to set aside its own rules in the higher interests
of justice is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence. We reiterate what we said in
Piczon vs Court of Appeals: Be it remember that rules of procedure are but mere
tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid
application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than
promote substantial justice, must always be avoided.

Lapid vs Court of Appeals (2000)

The general rule is that judgments by lower courts or tribunals become executory
only after they have become final and executory, execution pending appeal being
an exception to this general rule; there is no general legal principle that mandates
that all decisions of quasi-judicial agencies are immediately executory.

Rule 45

Nuñez vs GSIS Family Bank (2005)

The Supreme Court in accordance with the liberal spirit which pervades the Rules of
Court and in the interest of justice, may treat a petition for certiorari as having
been filed under Rule 45, more so if the same was filed within the reglementary
period for filing a petition for review. The records show that the petition was filed
on time both under Rule 45 and 65. Following Delsan Transport case, the
petition, stripped of allegations of “grave abuse of discretion”, actually avers
errors of judgment which are the subject of a petition for review.

China Road and Bridge Corporation vs Court of Appeals (2000)

A question of law exists when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on
a certain state of facts, and there is a question of fact when the doubt or
differences arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts, or when the query
necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the
credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding
circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole and probabilities of the
situation.

Petition for Relief from Judgments, Orders or other Proceedings

Escueta vs Lim (2007)

The 60-day period for filing a petition for annulment of judgment is reckoned from
the time the party acquired knowledge of the order, judgment or proceedings and
not from the date he actually read the same.

Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court states that, a petition provided for
in either of the proceeding sections of this Rule must be verified, filed within sixty (60) days
after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside,
and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such
proceeding was taken; and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the
petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.

Alvendia vs Intermidiate Appellate Court (1990)

It is axiomatic that there is no justification in law and in fact for the reopening of a
case which has long become final and which has in fact been executed. Time and
again the Supreme Court has said that the doctrine of finality of judgments is
grounded on fundamental consideration of public policy and sound practice that at
the risk of occasional error the judgments of courts must become final at some
definite date fixed by law.
Rule 47

Annulment of Judgment

People vs Bitanga (2007)

The remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be resorted to when the Regional


Trial Court judgment being questioned was rendered in a criminal case.

A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature


that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the
judgment sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or
through proceedings attended by extrinsic fraud. When the ground invoked is
extrinsic fraud, annulment of judgment must be sought within four years from
discovery of the fraud, which fact should be alleged and proven. In addition, the
particular acts or omissions constituting extrinsic fraud must be clearly established.
Extrinsic or collateral fraud is trickery practiced by prevailing party upon the
unsuccessful party, which prevents the latter from fully proving his case.

Fraginal vs Heirs of Toribia Belmonte Paranal (2007)

No doctrine is more sacrosanct than that judgment of courts or awards of quasi-


judicial bodies, even if erroneous, must become final at a definite time appointed by
law. This doctrine of finality of judgment is the bedrock of every stable judicial
system. However, the doctrine of finality of judgments permits certain equitable
remedies; and one of them is a petition for annulment under Rule 47 of the Rules of
Court. The remedy of final judgment is extraordinary in character and will not so
easily and readily lend itself to abuse by parties aggrieved by final judgments.

Direct recourse to a petition for annulment of judgment not allowed if other


appropriate remedies are available such as a petition for a new trial and a petition
for relief from judgment or an appeal.

Grande vs University of the Philippines (2006)

Rule 47 applies only to petitions only to petitions for nullification of judgments


rendered by regional trial courts filed with the Court of Appeals, it does not pertain
to the nullification of decisions of the Court of Appeals.

Petitions for annulment of judgment are not among the cases originally cognizable
by the Supreme Court. In this case, petitioners argue that although Rule 47 is a
newly-established rule, the procedure of annulment of judgments has long been
recognized in this jurisdiction. That may be so, but this Court has no authority to
take cognizance of an original action for annulment of judgment of any lower court.
The only original cases cognizable before this Court are “petitions for Certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, disciplinary proceedings
against members of the judiciary and attorneys, and cases affecting ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls”.

Cosmic Lumber Corporation vs Court of Appeals (1996)

Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the litigation
which is committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party has
been prevented from exhibiting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception
practiced on him by his opponent.

A party may now petition the Court of Appeals to annul and set aside judgments of
Regional Trial Courts. However, certain requisites must first be established before a
final and executory judgment can be subject of an action for annulment. It must be
either be void for want of jurisdiction or for lack of due process of law, or it
has been obtained by fraud.